You are looking at 1 - 10 of 10 items

  • Author or Editor: Leon Schjoedt x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Leon Schjoedt

Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), or parts of it, is common in entrepreneurship research to predict intention to start a new venture, entrepreneurial intention. Very limited research has examined the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and the subsequent enactment of those intentions. Even though TPB is considered sufficient and enjoys impressive meta-analytical support, research on the association between intentions and behavior is wanting. Implementation intentions hold potential to shed light upon the intention-behavior relationship, conceptually and empirically. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to draw attention to implementation intentions for future research to enhance explanation and prediction of when, where, and how some, but not others, enact their entrepreneurial intentions by launching new ventures.

You do not have access to this content

Leon Schjoedt and Vicar S. Valencia

Entrepreneurs employ different resources and strategies in the process of creating new ventures, whether the venture is for profit or not for profit. These differences influence the new venture created. Some entrepreneurs create new-to-the-world ventures by invention or synthesis, whereas others create new ventures by extension or duplication. This means that entrepreneurs may be grouped by how they learn and how they employ their knowledge in the venture creation process. Based on how entrepreneurs learn and employ their knowledge, entrepreneurs may be categorized as entrepreneurial leaders or entrepreneurial managers, which is the topic of this chapter. To this end, the authors contribute to the burgeoning literature on entrepreneurship and leadership by emphasizing the distinction between entrepreneurial leaders and entrepreneurial managers based on their preferred learning style and use of knowledge: essentially, entrepreneurial leaders place importance on knowledge exploration, whereas entrepreneurial managers emphasize knowledge exploitation in the new venture creation process.

You do not have access to this content

Leon Schjoedt and Sascha Kraus

You do not have access to this content

Leon Schjoedt and Barbara Bird

You do not have access to this content

Barbara Bird, Leon Schjoedt and Ralph Hanke

You do not have access to this content

Leon Schjoedt, Sascha Kraus and Cyrine Ben-Hafaïedh

The concept of entrepreneurial teams has still not been adequately defined in the literature and this hampers the consolidated development of entrepreneurial teams research (Knight et al., 2020). The existing literature on entrepreneurial teams contains numerous different definitions which are generally built upon a triptych of criteria: founder, owner and (top) manager (Ben-Hafaïedh, 2017). One of the most recent definitions is the loosest as it does not require the founder status nor the ownership criterion. An entrepreneurial team is here akin to a new venture top management team: ‘the group of individuals that is chiefly responsible for the strategic decision making and ongoing operations of a new venture’ (Klotz et al., 2014: 227). Beyond the different combinations of these criteria and the way the terms are captured, most existing definitions, with one notable exception, disregard the difference between the concepts of groups and teams. The literature on groups shows that the concept of teams is different from the concept of groups (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). The literature on top management teams also recognizes this difference between groups and teams. For example, Hambrick (1994) notes how the top management team is not a team per se, but a group of people with management responsibilities. To better define the entrepreneurial team, the concept of groups needs to be considered. A group is defined as ‘two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives’ (Robbins and Judge, 2008: 123).

This content is available to you

Ulrike Guelich, Amanda Bullough, Tatiana S. Manolova and Leon Schjoedt

In the introductory chapter to the book “Women’s Entrepreneurship and Culture: Socio-cultural context, traditional family roles and self-determination”, compiled in association with the Diana International Project, we present the eight chapters that comprise the book. The eight studies document different aspects of the interactions between gender and culture and their joint influence on women’s entrepreneurship rates and success. We organize the research themes into a framework highlighting three interconnected themes: the role of the socio-cultural context, traditional family roles and the strife for self-determination. This is followed by a presentation of the book chapters and how they collectively explain the influence of culture on women’s entrepreneurship and the influence of women’s entrepreneurship on culture in different regions around the world. We conclude by summarizing the major insights from this collection of studies and by suggesting some directions for future research.

You do not have access to this content

Women’s Entrepreneurship and Culture

Socio-cultural Context, Traditional Family Roles and Self-determination

Edited by Ulrike Guelich, Amanda Bullough, Tatiana S. Manolova and Leon Schjoedt

Women’s entrepreneurship is an effective way to combat poverty, hunger and disease, to stimulate sustainable business practices, and to promote gender equality. Yet, deeply engrained cultural norms often prescribe gender-specific roles and behaviors that severely constrain the opportunities for women’s entrepreneurial activities. This excellent new volume of work from the Diana Group explores this paradox.
You do not have access to this content

Kelly G. Shaver, Leon Schjoedt, Angela Passarelli and Crystal Reeck

Do entrepreneurial ventures involve risk? The quick answer to this question is “well, of course they do!” And there is no shortage of supportive data. For example, the US Panel Studies of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) Gartner et al., 2004; Reynolds and Curtin, 2009, 2011) shows that as many as 72 months after a business-organizing venture begins, only some 30 percent of efforts have produced new firms. Spending six years trying to organize a company “risks” at least the time and opportunity cost; selling a company for less than the venture-capital raised “risks” the wealth of the investors. But there are at least two important differences. First, investors can take a portfolio approach to try to balance risks and rewards. Individuals, however, typically start only one enterprise at a time, so they stand to lose “all,” not just “some.” Second, investment decisions made by angels or venture capitalists are typically collective decisions, involving the best guesses of multiple brains. By contract, business-organizing decisions are typically made by a single brain. At the present stage of theory and research, the single-brain decisions have been most heavily studied by the methods of neuroscience. Consequently, this chapter restricts its focus to the judgments of risk made by individual entrepreneurs. When the goal is to examine the brain correlates of variations in risk judgments, restricting the investigation to an individual person is merely the beginning. At least four other design elements need to be considered for the final answers to be clear: (1) there must be a conceptual analysis that distinguishes one sort of risk from others; (2) the research designs chosen must maximize the opportunity to obtain meaningful results; (3) the concepts selected for testing must be operationalized unambiguously; (4) potential methodological confounding must be avoided. The present chapter is organized to address each of these concerns in turn to identify practices that might better enable researchers to understand the cognitive neuroscience of entrepreneurial risk.